Tom's Thoughts

I have believed for some time that we face a growing problem that will become one of the biggest opportunities of the coming decade. The genesis of this problem is the explosion of available digital content or “stuff” beginning in 1993 with the introduction of the graphical web browser. You can blame the problem and the opportunity on Marc Andreesen and Eric Bina. Or you can, if you like, blame the inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Timothy John “Tim” Berners-Lee. (But, why bother, assigning blame will do you no good.)

The problem we face arises because of the different capacities and capabilities of humans and computers.  Beginning with email and, later, the web, we have been able, as humans, to generate extraordinary amounts of digital content. Indeed, when I post this article to my blog at tomhigley.com, it might be autoposted in a half a dozen more places - via Facebook, Twitter, Posterous, Tumblr, Blogger, and more. One person generating widely distributed content across multiple channels. And millions of people do this every day. Recent statistics (June 2010) indicate that Internet use now includes 1.9 billion people worldwide - 28.7% of the world’s population. Over 30 billion pieces of content are posted each month on Facebook alone. 

For good or ill, our ability to create and distribute digital “stuff” has far outpaced our ability to consume that stuff. Or to put it another way, while computers have been invaluable in facilitating creation of content - from email, to blogs, to images, to videos, to music, etc. - and in helping us distribute that content widely - via one-to-one, one-to-few and one-to-many channels, computers have not helped us become significantly more efficient in how we consume the stuff we’re creating and distributing.

Of course, I haven’t told the whole story. Computers haven’t just helped us create and distribute. They have also helped us find what others have created (and, presumably, helped others find what we have created). In fact, the first wave of the problem I am describing was addressed by Google with its search capability, its page rank algorithm and its hyper-focus on providing access to useful information in fractions of a second.

But a problem persists, and this problem is growing. There’s far too much stuff, far too much digital noise for me to know what’s available. Some of what I want, some of what I need, some of the things I’d pay for are out there right now, but I don’t even know they exist. The problem is, sometimes I don’t really know what to search for. I don’t know I want it yet. I don’t know yet, that it will save me time or money. Or save my life.

Is it conceivable that some company will find a new and very effective way to throw computing power at this problem? For example, Facebook has a good shot at this. After all, they have      

In his blog post today, John Battelle had interesting things to say about these issues. He suggested Twitter has a problem, which he describes as follows: 

The problem, of course, is that while Twitter makes it nearly effortless for folks to publish their own thoughts, it has done far too little to help those same folks glean value from the thoughts of others.Read more: http://battellemedia.com/archives/2010/11/twitters_great_big_problem_is_its_massive_opportunity.php#ixzz16p2iV4pA

Let’s see if we can’t find a way to extend this. If self-expression and discovery are critical to consumer satisfaction, Battelle is saying that Twitter has the first element down, while the last element - discovery - remains ripe for growth / improvement.  Battelle goes on to suggest that the real problem to be addressed is a function of two things: attention and noise. He actually defines “publishing” in terms of “attention.” 

To me, publishing is the art of determining what is worth paying attention to, by whom. And by that definition, Twitter most certainly is a publishing platform, one used by nearly 200 million folks.Read more: http://battellemedia.com/archives/2010/11/twitters_great_big_problem_is_its_massive_opportunity.php#ixzz16p1pG2NO

As I said previously, Battelle isn’t looking at publishing or attention in a vacuum. He is thinking about these things from the perspective of noise. How much noise is in the system? And what tools are available to anyone using the system to distill meaningful signal from that noise? Again, Battelle is very much thinking about this from the perspective of a “publisher.”  

 

At its core, publishing is about determining signal from noise. What’s extraordinary about Twitter is the complexity of that challenge - one man’s noise is another man’s signal, and vice versa. And what’s signal now may well be noise tomorrow - or two minutes from now. Multiply this by 200 million or so, then add an exponential element. Yow.

Read more: http://battellemedia.com/archives/2010/11/twitters_great_big_problem_is_its_massive_opportunity.php#ixzz16p31wSOU

I believe the problems faced by consumers and publishers are two sides of the same coin. The coin we’re talking about is the signal to noise ratio.  Or, to frame it in terms of attention, it’s the problem a consumer has when trying to determine where to focus her scarce attention, and the problem a publisher has when tyring to get consumers’ attention (in the face of system wide noise / distraction). Battelle says that publishers work to solve this problem. Indeed. It is also what promoters and brands do … and artists, and film studios and startups. In other words, the problem is pervasive - widely shared and frequently experienced. 

Which is why solving this problem is a big deal. If the company that pulls this off doesn’t exist today - if it isn’t Google, Facebook or Apple, but is a relative newcomer - that company may well rule the world.  

I’ve been thinking about these things for some time. Battelle has too. But we clearly aren’t the only ones. Another great blog post in this vein was dished up yesterday by Rand Fishkin, CEO of SEOmoz.  He suggests that the dominant paradigm, the use of the Crowd augmented by the Algorithm, is inadequate and suggests it will be superseded through companies that bring to bear a third, “benevolent editorial” axis. Maybe. I wonder about issues ofscale, openness, and long-term “benevolence.”

I think it far more likely that the answer lies with harnessing Moore’s law and the power of the computer to sift through that content and dish it up based on a collection of filters - friends, interests, mood, date, time, historical log of activity, and intentions (explicit and implicit). And I’d love to know what others think.